About this Show





San Francisco, CA, USA

Comcast Cable

Channel 89 (615 MHz)






Moore 2, Us 2, Antonini 1, Alicia John-baptiste 1, San Francisco 1, Howell 1, Alicia 1, Mta 1, City 1, Murphy 1, The City 1,
Borrow a DVD
of this show
  SFGTV    [untitled]  

    July 20, 2012
    9:00 - 9:29pm PDT  

items that need to be asked for a time extension. i am partially puzzled by the change, and i am puzzled by a different name of the architect. >> i would defer to the product sponsor for changes on the plan. there are no changes on the project. all of the original conditions would apply to the project and the drawings as approved in 2008 would continue to serve as exhibit a. i would ask the project sponsor that maybe they come up and clarify that.
>> these -- i am not sure, with respect to this. i think the designer has changed firms. we are still working with him. right now, it is just the extension. commissioner moore: that is all i needed to know. the drawings are slightly different but that is neither here nor there. the commission was sensitive about the use of retail, what it will look like, what we are expecting. that is another discussion. i want to make sure that we are on track with the basic approval ideas that were in front of us. i fully support the extension because i'd be in the project worthy of extension. >commissioner antonini: i am
fully supportive of thas i was n 2008, but is there prospect that we might be moving forward on this? and increased market for commercial space. commissioner moore: i make a motion to approve the project as proposed. >> second. >> a motion on the floor for approval as proposed. [roll call vote] thank you, commissioners, that motion passes unanimously. you are on item nine.
amendments to the transit impact development fee. >> the afternoon, commissioners. alicia john-baptiste from these and francisco transportation agency. we would modify and impact the transit development fee. it is an impact fee that provides the city with funding to offset the impact of net new development on the city's transit system. money generated hot is directed to the mta and used to fund capital improvements and system maintenance. it applies a citywide and is levied on most non-residential use. it is considered it charitably as exempt. certain land use, automotive
services, and i already covered it charitably eggs of project. new projects are given a prior use credit when the site they are occupying has been active within the preceding five years. when a project comes in with a change of use application, the difference between the proposed use and the rate is such a difference exists. the ordinance updating was introduced at the same time as an ordinance that would establish a the sustainability program. both of those zero were introduced and co-sponsored and introduced in may of this year. it is a proposal that would make the city's actual practices consistent with and
the policy objectives. they would provide comprehensive citywide transportation system improvements. at the same time, mitigate impacts on the transportation system. because the program requires an environmental impact report, we are expecting it will be completed in the later part of 2013, and it serves as the city's mechanism to offset the impact on the transit system. once it is implemented, if it is adopted, it will no longer be collected. state law requires that we update the study is underlying the impact fees every five years. they completed the study last year, and in addition to base rates, they have not been increased since 2004 and an
annual indexing which is proposed by the comptroller's office. and has not kept pace with the cost increase associated with providing additional service to meet the needs of new developments over the past eight years. the current is inconsistent with the way the impact fees are assessed and administered under the planning cut. to give a little bit of background, it was first enacted in 1981. there was a recognition that build out what require additional transit service. there is a belief that the downtown core will be primarily a center for office, and over time, that has shifted.
the mta conducted his a study, it has an impact on the transit system. it was updated to apply city- wide for most commercial uses. in 2010, the article 4 of the planning code was established making the planning department responsible for assessing and imposing impact fees. in to the planning cut, the responsibility for improving and collecting the fees shifted away at that point. as i mentioned, they completed a study and the work was done at
the same time as the city completed the sustainability program. it is not propose to apply to residential. the ordinance will expand and change how it is applied. howell will provide a greater consistency with definitions and terms in the planning code and provide a clarification for imposing collecting fees. it changes the ray, increasing most of them. in terms of the application changes, the updated establishment establishes a threshold. currently is 3000 gross square feet.
the department analyzed development impacts and determines how it impacts -- it is the exemption threshold. the area plan impact fees. it would make it consistent with that analytical work done. how these are treated under the planning code. the updated makes it consistent with the sustainability program. this is to a knowledge that all that new development has an impact on the transportation system. recognize that there is time required for capital fund- raising for those types of uses, they propose a grandfather ing period not to be subject to the tidf.
i will discuss that a little bit more. it will be included -- they were able to analyze those impacts. it will apply to property beneficially owned in the city. it also clarifies the uses of that are accessory he uses exempted from the field are nonetheless responsible if those accessories as are not in and of themselves exempt. it changes the definition of the
band in use. it ties the definition back to the planning code and the principally permitted uses never considered abandoned. if the project were being proposed, there would never be a time frame for an activity that would trigger the prior use credits. it is a time frame for nonconforming in traditional uses of three years. the update also clarifies that the change in use fee will be based on the existing -- it would not tied to the existing stuff. there were a handful of
definition changes, these are all to bring these definitions and consistency without planning code defines these terms. the citation was added to the child care facilities, the definition for medical and health services was modified to exclude animal services. this is largely because the trip generation rate from other cultural uses, and finally, the definition is modified to exclude laundering. the update of some exchanges to clarify and simplify the roles of the mta, the planning department in assessing and collecting a fee. planning assesses the feet and dbi collect the fee.
and this, again, as a result of the fact that it was moved over from the administrative code of the planning code. a this is a transition of responsibility. in addition, the future updates to the provisions of the planning cut section which hooks up analyzing the fees. the current rates of the draft ordinance, the final column shows the rate that is allowed under the nexus analysis, so it shows you how much each land use will need to be charged to fully offset the impact of each of those development types. the proposed rates is more than was allowed under the nexus.
it will increase and is proposing to go down. this table here provides you in order of magnitude of the annual projected revenue. the revenue projection assumes full development bill about in any given years. in total, it shows the update would result in an increase annually. because it is the primary mechanism for impact from new development on the transit system, the rates have not kept pace with the cost of providing that service, the department recommends a series of modifications to the ordinance. introducing a policy credits program and extending for institutional uses, retaining
the frame for inactive uses, providing collection and appeal authority in certain cases and clarifying the use of the application for the provision. we are recommending introducing a program, and just as a reminder, there is a policy credit proposed. there is assisting ability fee revenue to fund the credit program. it is intended to encourage and help meet certain policy objectives of the city. it would allow certain projects to be waived or reduced fees under the program. the categories of program eligible for this credit includes non form of retail and vacant space.
those less than the maximum amount of parking, the affordable housing projects and small residential projects designed are those with 20 units or less. the credits would be allocated on a first-come, first-served basis. the board has generally supported the concept of a policy credits program. they did establish a cap, they felt it was important to recognize the development project has an impact on the transportation system as a whole under the sustainability ordinance. it may be something for the commitment -- committee to make a recommendation on today. as proposed, it does not include a policy credits program but is intended to be in alignment.
it is not necessary for those uses. the commission may want to recommend instituting a policy credit program for small credits. we also heard some from concerns -- that some concerns from the community about growth. by establishing the credit program, it will move to 5000 revs murphy. more projects would have reduced fees under the policy credits program. the commission may wish to consider the mta board's recommendation to establish a cap of 90%. the department is also recommending extending their grandfather. for -- the grandfathering
period, but the objective was to allow the use is sufficient time to accommodate a new fee. the october 2012 date included in the proposed ordinance had assumed a much earlier adoption. that we heard feedback from these types of uses suggesting that they needed a much longer field to adjust. we recommend extending to when it might come into effect if it is adopted. it does not yet spelled out a transition in terms of grandfathering uses, and this is something that staffas committed to working out a detailed proposal on with the legislature to ensure that a project would not be grandfathered and subject which
was not the intention of either program. a third recommendation is to retain the existing language that establishes a timeframe for active and inactive users to determine if a prior year's credit can be applied. the proposed ordinance changes this language. edifies a three year timeframe for nonconforming or traditional uses. they understand the intention was not to create that dichotomy. staff said the language and it is much more clear. we also heard feedback from the small business commission requesting retention of the five-year time frame and are proposing are recommending this modification. a fourth recommendation is to
provide the san francisco municipal transit agency with authority to collect the fees in those cases where the certificate of occupancy has already been issued but the fee has not yet been paid. there has been a time when they have had occasions to not have paid their feet. once the occupancy is issued, it has o'hare project with the sponsor -- contact with the project sponsor. under the current and proposed ordinance, the staff recommendation to give the authority to do collection in those cases. it recommends establishing a
process where there is responsibility for assessing the impact fee. under article 4 of the planning code, this would establish a perrault procedure where is the responsible agency. our final recommendation is to clarify the way in which the application is to find. the updates as accessory uses may not pay the fees if they are not exempt from the feet regardless to the use which their accessory is exempt. because it was not intended to apply for residential, it is our recommendation to clarify that it is also not subject to the feed with the caveat that it does apply to the non- residential portion and the accessories would be subject to
the fee. in terms of anticipating the hearings of land use in september followed by full board education in october, the limitation in november. the sustainability program is adopted, it would no longer be collected. we're expecting to see deliberation on that in winter of 2013. i am available for questions. >> you might also point out that in the audiences someone from the transportation authority and the mayor's office that worked on this project with you. >> would you like to speak? >> i want to spend a couple of
minutes reinforcing the support of this project. where have been working collaborative the with the mayor's office. it has been three years coming, it is one of the few sources the mta has to support capital related projects. as a development of the city, the tension in providing the services grows. the mta board supports the policy credits, the policy credit for using given the impact regardless of development tie. of all the policy credits, the parking restriction credit was the one that resonated with them the most due to the impact of
the parking in the legislation system. i want to thank alicia for the amount of work she has done. i believe she wants to make a couple of comments. >> i am the director of transportation policy, have to reiterate, these ordnances were introduced by the mayor and co- sponsored with supervisors wiener and olague. we appreciate this opportunity to better align these houses. >> will live like to echo of my colleague's comments.
it is a needed update in terms of findings to support the effort to implement the transportation system and ability project. >> is there any public comment on this item. >> hello, commissioners. he and the development consultant and i have a class that has been working on a project that involves wholesale and household storage as well as incubator space. it was submitted last year and we have been working closely.
a have been implementing the project with the incubator. the changes to the program comes as the with the wholesale storage exemption. we certainly appreciate a reduction of a fee for other uses, but a fee on the storage component is a substantial hit to the project and one that will probably make the project in feasible. what we are requesting is a consideration of grandfather in, similar to the non-profit institution exemption under the effective date of the legislation. we have an application in for the department and we hope to be
able to process that quickly and get the project under way by the time it goes into effect. the changes have caught us by surprise. we appreciate the automotive repair and storage components to be allowed an exemption to continue. got good afternoon, commissioners. i am speaking on behalf of the director. in june 11, 2012, they voted 7-0 to recommend approval with modifications. the commission proposed alternatives. they recommended the threshold remain in effect until it is implemented.
second, the implication was that it was not accepted by the board and adopted a secretive program as proposed. the commission reviewed the planning department was a recommendation and determined there was a recommendation. the policy decision regarding the credits that will be allowed, and they requested it be made available to small businesses that meet the non formative criteria. this is consistent with the intent of the credit. it seems substantial but still leaves the possibility of $6,500 and fees to open the business. it can be applied for other impact fees such as eastern
neighborhoods and non planning related fees. this is only available for existing commercial spaces and new developments related to small business will be subject to the tidf. it is the goal of multiple city departments and to the office of economic and work-force development, injected with the neighborhood program. it is a shared priority in the non-formula retail to move the scope forward. including those with low and moderate income and expressing the impact fees. inevitably, clients skier clearer for those that might be applied to them. they become hesitant to fill the spaces and to contribute to the challenges